Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 2010 is fair.  That was a very young team, starting 6 rookies.  

    2011, no, though, sorry.

    Brady had all the weapons any QB could ever want. I also don't excuse him for SB 42 smirking at BUrress's prediction, then trying to go out there and light it up, only to fail miserably.  

    Last year, no. 13 points is abysmal at home. Abysmal. We'll never win anything with the offense doing that.

    Lastly, this has been going on for years  and years with Brady, and it didn't with Montana.

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right liar, don't excuse Brady for SB 42 where he was sacked 5 times and hit 25 times yet still came up with the clutch TD late to get the lead only to see the D collapse and lose it.

    And Montana played plenty bad in the playoffs, except when he played the inferior AFC as I have documents and you simply ignore like the dishonest troll you are.

    You are; Bludgeoned again.

    [/QUOTE]

    14 points is not enough to win a SB unless it's 1972 or something. You've bludgeoned nothing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It was enough to win in 2007 if the D didn't collapse in the last minutes after Brady had just given them the lead.

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

    [/QUOTE]


    Typical Babe Brady blow job. Yup the D collapsed despite holding the Giants to below their seasons points average while Brady was heroic after scoring way less than his season's points average.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL


    They just don't get that or want to admit that fact.  The D overachieved in 2011's postseason and played well.

    The offense underachieved and played in subpar fashion.

    The fact they won't admit this means they have mental illness.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey, stop quoting that moron. I have him on ignore for a reason. He's actually less worth reading than you. Most would consider that impossible.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 2010 is fair.  That was a very young team, starting 6 rookies.  

    2011, no, though, sorry.

    Brady had all the weapons any QB could ever want. I also don't excuse him for SB 42 smirking at BUrress's prediction, then trying to go out there and light it up, only to fail miserably.  

    Last year, no. 13 points is abysmal at home. Abysmal. We'll never win anything with the offense doing that.

    Lastly, this has been going on for years  and years with Brady, and it didn't with Montana.

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right liar, don't excuse Brady for SB 42 where he was sacked 5 times and hit 25 times yet still came up with the clutch TD late to get the lead only to see the D collapse and lose it.

    And Montana played plenty bad in the playoffs, except when he played the inferior AFC as I have documents and you simply ignore like the dishonest troll you are.

    You are; Bludgeoned again.

    [/QUOTE]

    14 points is not enough to win a SB unless it's 1972 or something. You've bludgeoned nothing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It was enough to win in 2007 if the D didn't collapse in the last minutes after Brady had just given them the lead.

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

    [/QUOTE]


    Typical Babe Brady blow job. Yup the D collapsed despite holding the Giants to below their seasons points average while Brady was heroic after scoring way less than his season's points average.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL


    They just don't get that or want to admit that fact.  The D overachieved in 2011's postseason and played well.

    The offense underachieved and played in subpar fashion.

    The fact they won't admit this means they have mental illness.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey, stop quoting that moron. I have him on ignore for a reason. He's actually less worth reading than you. Most would consider that impossible.

    [/QUOTE]


    Poor baby just can't take those pesky little facts colliding with his self delusions

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't think Brady's decision making or responsibility with having full autonomy and his play in recent postseasons have been a problem?

    13 or 14 points scored, 40+ passes with a lead, preferring the shotgun against Ds he apparently is afraid of, are not problems via Brady?

    Why?

    What position in sports do you think is the most important? 

    As for the coaching staff, this is without question one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL and has been for years.  

    Fears, Scarnecchia, Pepper, heck, even Patrick Graham has been doing a real nice job for this team.  STs coaching is also good with Scott O'Brien.

    To me, I see O"Brien and McDaniels as the same guy, which tells me all I need to know, and you wont like the statement I would make next, so I won't bother. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    It appears, and you have stated this in the past, you feel Brady is egotistical and is focused on passing the ball most times.  Brady makes calls at the line based on what he sees not on his desire to "pass" the ball as you imply.  No different than Manning and other top flight NFL QBs

    It makes one wonder how many times Brady has audibled out of a running play resulting in a succesful pass play in which everyone is high-fiving each other.  But, when a pass play is unsuccessful, which may or may not have been an audible out of a called running play, there is a presumption on your part the pass play was called by Brady and the fact it did not succeed is Brady's fault.  You can't have it both ways.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's been baited. Teams know he prefers to pass and be in the shotgun, so that info is invaluable.

    [/QUOTE]

    You must mean BB here. Because, you know, he is the Head Coach and all. More lying from the phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've stated, BB walked from Woodhead and Welkie much more than just for money, which I;ve been trying to tell idiots like you about all year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, we know you just make things up all the time. That's what pathological lairs do.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are Welker and Woodhead here? Woodhead signed for peanuts.

    Do the math.

    If they wanted one or both, they'd be here. Fact.

    You're a moron if you don't get this by now.  Blount might run amuck, Vereen lined up all over on Sat night and NE blows out Indy, and you want Brady in a shotguun at 80% in the rain throwing 45 times again. 

    Cannot be made up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh. I get it. You make things up, get all butt hurt when you are exposed, then attack as if you weren't a liar.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What on earth did I get exposed with by saying Woodhead and Welker aren't here anymore?

    How did you expose me?

    You saying "bludgoned" or "exposed", both words I use here, won't do anything. It just appears more and more that you're out of bullets, stumbling back into the ropes, obviously.

    Ya got nothing.

    What I say in these discussions bothers you so much, you and Pezzy walk hand in hand down a thread wildly using adjectives that describe yourselves, not me.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually that is your mantra.  You ALWAYS accuse others of what you, yourself do.

    You just had the freaken nerve to tell someone if the resorted to insults that it made them look like a fool.  LOL  OMG  Banned 30 times for that very thing.

    You actually call others liars when you are the slimiest, pathological liar, known to man.

    LOL OMG

    You question peoples, jobs, education, lack of friends, call people gay, when you spend your entire life on a message board while using your hands and mouth to massage BB's ego.

    BWHAHAHA  LOL OMG

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Actually that is your mantra.  You ALWAYS accuse others of what you, yourself do.

    You just had the freaken nerve to tell someone if the resorted to insults that it made them look like a fool.  LOL  OMG  Banned 30 times for that very thing.

    You actually call others liars when you are the slimiest, pathological liar, known to man.

    LOL OMG

    You question peoples, jobs, education, lack of friends, call people gay, when you spend your entire life on a message board while using your hands and mouth to massage BB's ego.

    BWHAHAHA  LOL OMG

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep!  That pretty much sums up Rusty and his existence on this forum... and probably real life.  Could you imagine having to deal with this guy in the real world?   No wonder this guy works from home, nobody can stand him in person.  He goes and watches the games at a bar by himself because nobody will invite him over to their house to watch with them.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    These discussion strings are so long because of the new response parameters effected by BDC.com.  Got to eliminate all those "qoute - qout e- qoute" lines and edit out any previous post one is not responding to.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see this is another day of board virtual dick measuring contests.

    You guys let me know how anything to do with Montana affects the outcome of Saturday's game

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, I was the one being mature, but then they started in, getting all insecure because of the points I was making.

    They're like the knight in the cave at the end of Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. They have this internet crusde to uphold Brady's legacy. INstead of gurading the Holy Grail, they "guard" Brady's perceived legacy.  It's quite odd and a clear sign of mental illness, too.

     

    The best was yesterday when Pezzy claimed he grew up minutes from the stadium. How on earth can anyone have watched that crap product in the 1980s/early 1990s and then bash Kraft and BB for what they provide the fans, and for so long?

    It's sick.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Grew up 10 minutes from the stadium and worked at the track for 5 years as a kid, and as I stated, that crap back then has nothing to do with the crap I see now.  This team should be better.  It has the best QB, Coach, Owner of the past decade and beyond.

    There is no excuse for no SB wins since 2005, except the team, over-all has been lacking, minus 2007 where they were out coached and out played with the second defensive meltdown in as many years.  When will it improve?

      My hair went from black to grey since the last win.  Probably the cause of that. LOL

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    I know this thread is spiraling way out there but how is BB getting Brady under controll walking away from DW or WW.  When they have Vareen and then go get DA.  The skill set has remained the same, nothing has changed the way the Pats have played therefore droping the two was a pure GM function of going for youth and lower long term cost.  

     

    When people were saying DA was a better WW, there was no one saying thay are doing this to get Brady under controll.  You can't speak out of one side of your mouth and say BB is getting a more versitile and younger player then, use it in the context BB slapped Brady under controll by taking away the same skill set they replaced...

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    NE went into the 08 SB without a running back, one dimensional ( I'm back at my PC Rusty, how's that) and the Giants knew it. We also dropped a TE from the game day roster which may have helped curb the QB onslaught....

    So we throw the ball like 50 times and Brady is getting the snot beat out of him because the Giants have brought a D that exposed a one dimensional offense.

    We ran the ball a whopping 16 times but what was the point, we only garnered 45 yds for a paltry 2.8 per carry. But that's all those "RB" were capable of.

    Doesn't need to be like that this year...we have a group of RBs that can run well, run play action and catch passes out of the backfield.

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see this is another day of board virtual dick measuring contests.

    You guys let me know how anything to do with Montana affects the outcome of Saturday's game

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, I was the one being mature, but then they started in, getting all insecure because of the points I was making.

    They're like the knight in the cave at the end of Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. They have this internet crusde to uphold Brady's legacy. INstead of gurading the Holy Grail, they "guard" Brady's perceived legacy.  It's quite odd and a clear sign of mental illness, too.

     

    The best was yesterday when Pezzy claimed he grew up minutes from the stadium. How on earth can anyone have watched that crap product in the 1980s/early 1990s and then bash Kraft and BB for what they provide the fans, and for so long?

    It's sick.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Grew up 10 minutes from the stadium and worked at the track for 5 years as a kid, and as I stated, that crap back then has nothing to do with the crap I see now.  This team should be better.  It has the best QB, Coach, Owner of the past decade and beyond.

    There is no excuse for no SB wins since 2005, except the team, over-all has been lacking, minus 2007 where they were out coached and out played with the second defensive meltdown in as many years.  When will it improve?

      My hair went from black to grey since the last win.  Probably the cause of that. LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    Talk to Brady.  It's his offense in the AFC title games since 2007 at home with 3 TDs, 7 INTs.

    That's a reflectin of overall bad play by him and the offense.

    Christ, even the 2005 divisionals in Denver, the guy threw a floater for a Pick 6.  Wasn't their day with 4 overall turnovers, but with the lead, in the red zone, how did that one help?

    The guy you love with a feverish lustful passion is the main reason for these issues.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm talking to you and the Gm who put that pathetic D on the field.  Pfft

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't think Brady's decision making or responsibility with having full autonomy and his play in recent postseasons have been a problem?

    13 or 14 points scored, 40+ passes with a lead, preferring the shotgun against Ds he apparently is afraid of, are not problems via Brady?

    Why?

    What position in sports do you think is the most important? 

    As for the coaching staff, this is without question one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL and has been for years.  

    Fears, Scarnecchia, Pepper, heck, even Patrick Graham has been doing a real nice job for this team.  STs coaching is also good with Scott O'Brien.

    To me, I see O"Brien and McDaniels as the same guy, which tells me all I need to know, and you wont like the statement I would make next, so I won't bother. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    It appears, and you have stated this in the past, you feel Brady is egotistical and is focused on passing the ball most times.  Brady makes calls at the line based on what he sees not on his desire to "pass" the ball as you imply.  No different than Manning and other top flight NFL QBs

    It makes one wonder how many times Brady has audibled out of a running play resulting in a succesful pass play in which everyone is high-fiving each other.  But, when a pass play is unsuccessful, which may or may not have been an audible out of a called running play, there is a presumption on your part the pass play was called by Brady and the fact it did not succeed is Brady's fault.  You can't have it both ways.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's been baited. Teams know he prefers to pass and be in the shotgun, so that info is invaluable.

    [/QUOTE]

    You must mean BB here. Because, you know, he is the Head Coach and all. More lying from the phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've stated, BB walked from Woodhead and Welkie much more than just for money, which I;ve been trying to tell idiots like you about all year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, we know you just make things up all the time. That's what pathological lairs do.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are Welker and Woodhead here? Woodhead signed for peanuts.

    Do the math.

    If they wanted one or both, they'd be here. Fact.

    You're a moron if you don't get this by now.  Blount might run amuck, Vereen lined up all over on Sat night and NE blows out Indy, and you want Brady in a shotguun at 80% in the rain throwing 45 times again. 

    Cannot be made up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh. I get it. You make things up, get all butt hurt when you are exposed, then attack as if you weren't a liar.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What on earth did I get exposed with by saying Woodhead and Welker aren't here anymore?

    How did you expose me?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By showing your claim that BB got rid of them because Brady was relying on them too much is just more pure Rusty bullshyte lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, then why did he get rid of them? Welker had a Welker kind of season this year, ad did Woodhead.

    It wasn't price, so you can use that one. So, why?

    Tell us, Diapers.   Tell the board:

    [/QUOTE]


    He got rid of them because he felt he had better options, like all GMs do when they get rid of one guy and go with something else.

    As you have agreed, Welker was aging and Woody was being less effective. BB went for other options. That's all.

    It had nothing whatsoever to do with Brady and "binkys", as you try to lie your way into convincing people to believe.

    That's just a concoction in your disheveled mind dumbkoff. It's not real.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    He got rid of them because he felt he had better options, like all GMs do when they get rid of one guy and go with something else.

    As you have agreed, Welker was aging and Woody was being less effective. BB went for other options. That's all.

    It had nothing whatsoever to do with Brady and "binkys", as you try to lie your way into convincing people to believe.

    That's just a concoction in your disheveled mind dumbkoff. It's not real.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, according to some here, BB was dumb for letting Woodhead go. There were 2 or 3 thread about this just this past week.

    As for Welker, apparently he lines up on the outside like Amendola does, so BB should have paid for the older Welker.

    So, you're wrong.

    You also just admitted BB is trying to improve the offense when you said "Woody was being less effective".

    EXPOSED

    Now, list your 15 superior GMs over BB, please. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course BB is trying to improve everything you wackjob. What did you think, he's trying to make it worse? Looks like you've been hitting the booze early today.

    Hey, list your 15 QBs better than Brady dumbkoff.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    For someone to state that a Coach/GM got rid of players because the QB passed to that player all the time has to be the biggest joke of a comment I have ever heard.  Brady went to Welker because he was the trusted and best option, much like Edelman is now.  You want him to throw to other receivers then get him other receivers who can get open.  Plain and simple.  LOL @ Rusty.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For someone to state that a Coach/GM got rid of players because the QB passed to that player all the time has to be the biggest joke of a comment I have ever heard.  Brady went to Welker because he was the trusted and best option, much like Edelman is now.  You want him to throw to other receivers then get him other receivers who can get open.  Plain and simple.  LOL @ Rusty.

    [/QUOTE]


    He just makes things up. Has been doing it for years.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NE went into the 08 SB without a running back, one dimensional ( I'm back at my PC Rusty, how's that) and the Giants knew it. We also dropped a TE from the game day roster which may have helped curb the QB onslaught....

    So we throw the ball like 50 times and Brady is getting the snot beat out of him because the Giants have brought a D that exposed a one dimensional offense.

    We ran the ball a whopping 16 times but what was the point, we only garnered 45 yds for a paltry 2.8 per carry. But that's all those "RB" were capable of.

    Doesn't need to be like that this year...we have a group of RBs that can run well, run play action and catch passes out of the backfield.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Laura Maroney had 22 carries and 122 yards vs SD in the AFC Title game.  So, you're wrong.

    If they had committed to a run game, used less shotgun, Maroney would have had more yards as the lead back, there would have been less clock and we win SB 42.

    It's no differrent than BJGE only getting 8 carries total in a game (before his last awkward obligatory subbed in carry), where you have a 17-12 or 17-15 lead.  The Giants D was gassed at the end. The Pats should have been running amuck by then, but Brady/O'Brien refused.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    IS this an example of your fine debating skills??  The guy mentioned the 08 SB and you are bringing up the 07 AFCCG?!?!  WHY??  Why cant you stay on topic??  You think you are right??   Havent you heard your mentor say that each game is its own and nothing carries over from week to week?  If so, why didnt bill just give it to Laura 22 times in the SB?!??!  Is it because he is inept coach??

     

    Deflection coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

    Another Day, Another Blugeoning. (In my Babe voice)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    These discussion strings are so long because of the new response parameters effected by BDC.com.  Got to eliminate all those "qoute - qout e- qoute" lines and edit out any previous post one is not responding to.




    I have a feeling that when the Globe contracts for someone to host the web site the only parameter they use is 'how cheaply can we get the minimum functionality'. It would explain theirhiring practices for their sports writers too.

    They could also own stock in a company that manufactures mouse wheels

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Expecting honesty on this is hopeless.

    Let's face it, if BB himself came in and slapped some of these characters silly screaming all the while, "WE RUN MORE WHEN IT'S BEING EFFECTIVE, GOT IT?", they would all be here the next day posting the same nonsense.

     [/QUOTE]

    Is it "honesty" is simply being pigheaded?  IMHO, most everyone here has acknowledged issues with the team over the years.  .......  So, is it honesty or just trying to scream louder than everyone else: "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Bill, I hope you don't group me in with rusty and his insane theory about everything being the best QB in nfl histories fault.

    My premise is simple, since we started going with more of a pass heavy aerial attack, we have struggled in the post season against good defenses.  I dont think BB is an idiot, i dont understand how a debate could turn into that?

    I think it is only natural to fall back on your HOF QB who broke every passing record in the book a little too often. I dont see a lot of games where we came out and ran 15 20 times for 50 yards. I dont see our running game getting shut down like babe and company claim. I saw woodhead getting nowhere out of the draw plays, but our power backs have always ran well under coach scsrs o line. 

    I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We have scored 15.5 pog in 5 playoff losses in a row. I mean our defense has been nowhere near the level of the dynasty defense I get it, but it is an offensive driven league now.  15.5 ppg? We can't pretend that is going to win us playoff games can we? Not when we average over double that. 

    I respect your opinions a lot. What do you think of reiss's take on how the pass heavy approach has hindered our offense in some tough post season exits? Or Salks take on what a ball control balanced offense does for all 3 phases of the game, and how it wears down a defense?

    [/QUOTE]

    Triple...  no I do not.  Meant as a general statement and referencing some posters who are very steadfast in their opinions regardless of contrary arguments.

    I have said in the past that it is a head scratcher when the team goes away from what is working in a game, running or passing.  Take for example, SB42..  both TDs were not scored with pass happy series.  Combinations of runs and passes with an up tempo attack not giving the Giants' D an opportunity to haul off and going to the edges instead of up the middle.  All other times, Pats tried for pass plays that required time to set up and the Giants' rush did not allow for it.

    To your last paragraph...  Consider the mindset of the team.. PASSING was working ALL season long and they had the weapons.  There was a barely a team that could stop them. Do you blame them?  In both those SB losses, the Giants D played well above what it did in the regular season, which happens.  Pats did not adjust in time.  Recall how often run plays got blown up?  Anyway, it is what it is.. we can't change that history and, hopefully, what we saw late this season portends a more balanced attack, or rather, an attack the other team can't figure out which way it will go..  run or pass heavy. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Bill you were responding to me, not triple, but I agree, the pass worked so well for us in the regular season it was hard to get away from it in the playoffs. Only natural to rely on the HOF QB.

    Did you read Reiss's opinion that focusing on the pass too much played a role in our post season exits? Or Salks take on how a balanced attack can help the defense and wear down defensive lines, which would help Tom Brady and play to his strength of PA passing? 

    This has been my premise for years. I never want to see us run 20 times just for the sake of it and if we are only getting 2.5 ypc, but that hasn't happened too often.Or if were are getting beat by 3 scores or something extreme, but again, doesn't happen much.

    Maroney came off back to back 120 yard 1 td games before the gints held him the SB. Other then that our lead back has produced well enough, usually 4-5 ypc, and the games were always close, other then 09 when the ravens creamed us.

    Anyway, looks like Mcd and BB have made running an area of focus.Top 10 run game the last 2 years!  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share